Who?What Is God?

[Fairy]

“From one thing, know ten thousand things.”
~ Miyamoto Musashi

“There is no one in this world who is not looking for God.” ~ Hafiz

“The Infinite has no preferences, It kisses both the darkness and the light equally.”
~ Wu Hsin

You're welcome.

[MikeNovack]

“From one thing, know ten thousand things.”
~ Miyamoto Musashi

Idiom alert Understand as "From one thing know all things" Perhaps the most well known line of the Tao Te Ching is "The ten-thousand things are straw dogs" (all things in creation are disposable once purpose done)

[daniel j lavender]

There appears to be a presumption that the universe was 'created'. That there is therefore a 'creator'. That 'he' must be omnipotent. And so forth. That does rather limit what god must be, or rather indicates our limited imagination and biased views. Indeed, if 'god' is part of the totality of existence then he, or rather it, is not omnipotent.

The omnipotence aspect depends on definition.

For example the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition (2016) defines omnipotent as:

“Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force”

(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition 2016
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/omnipotent)


…in which case “universal” could indicate the universe.

God would have power or authority over the universe, itself part of existence.

It is probably impossible to explain the totality of existence

viewtopic.php?t=40269

He'd have to exercise it over infinite, eternal matter over which He has no choice, no free will, at all. The laws of physics are prevenient of God, who would have to humbly submit to them. So He would not be omnipotent bar being the ground of being, of nature and supernature. Only in the latter would He be manifest.

Are you claiming the universe is infinite and eternal?

It’s similar to a video game. Humans create video games and gaming consoles. Within those video games are physics systems. Physics systems vary among games. Humans create those systems yet exist beyond them.

Humans are in control of those universes, those games and those consoles. They create and sustain them.

Are you suggesting that could not apply to our universe? Why not?

In fact many will contend the very ability to create such systems was endowed by a creator, is reflection of creator.

This is a rather simplified example yet serves the purpose here.

the ground of being

To note, “ground of being” would also be part of being or part of existence.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The omnipotence aspect depends on definition.

For example the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition (2016) defines omnipotent as:

“Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force”

(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition 2016
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/omnipotent)


…in which case “universal” could indicate the universe.

God would have power or authority over the universe, itself part of existence.




viewtopic.php?t=40269

He'd have to exercise it over infinite, eternal matter over which He has no choice, no free will, at all. The laws of physics are prevenient of God, who would have to humbly submit to them. So He would not be omnipotent bar being the ground of being, of nature and supernature. Only in the latter would He be manifest.

Are you claiming the universe is infinite and eternal?

It’s similar to a video game. Humans create video games and gaming consoles. Within those video games are physics systems. Physics systems vary among games. Humans create those systems yet exist beyond them.

Humans are in control of those universes, those games and those consoles. They create and sustain them.

Are you suggesting that could not apply to our universe? Why not?

In fact many will contend the very ability to create such systems was endowed by a creator, is reflection of creator.

This is a rather simplified example yet serves the purpose here.

the ground of being

To note, “ground of being” would also be part of being or part of existence.

No, matter, stuff, nature, physics, existence is infinite and eternal, universes come and go.

Nothing is similar to that in any way. Least of all our doodlings on a par with cave paintings.

Nature, Greek phusis, physics does universes. According to its minimal, totally deterministic laws. They cannot vary.

Invoking an intentional creator, a humble instantiater of the immutable, prevenient laws of physics, makes matters infinitely worse. Especially as there is no warrant, no justification for doing so.

No purpose is served by Them whatsoever.

To some purists God would be above, below even, existence, being.

[daniel j lavender]

…existence is infinite and eternal

Agree.

Nothing is similar to that in any way. Least of all our doodlings on a par with cave paintings.

Perhaps, and you make a fair point. However examples of some sort must be utilized to convey ideas.

Nature, Greek phusis, physics does universes. According to its minimal, totally deterministic laws. They cannot vary.

That is a statement extending from a limited perspective.

As illustrated physics systems can vary, at least virtually, while still operating within certain parameters. Take for example football video games. They all operate within certain standard parameters, rules, the same patterns and motions. Yet they still vary, if only a little. Not only the game mechanics, but the programming methods and structures behind the games.

If that can be accomplished on this level, why not on a superior level?

In the way you suggest physics as the ground for universes, deity could be the ground for those systems. In that case, deity would still be part of existence.

Let’s get to the core of the issue. What is physics? What is deity? Things acting. Things happening. Things. Existence. All else could be viewed merely as label games.

There are a variety of views and beliefs. Everyone can agree on that.

Invoking an intentional creator, a humble instantiater of the immutable, prevenient laws of physics, makes matters infinitely worse. Especially as there is no warrant, no justification for doing so.

No purpose is served by Them whatsoever.

So your primary reason for rejection is deity complicates things? Are you implying physics isn’t complicated? Cosmological models aren’t complicated? Humanity isn’t complicated?

Many would contend it isn’t a matter of invoking but rather a matter of realizing.

Many would also attest that such realization prompts reflection and recourse fostering understanding, improvement and growth.

As expressed, there are a variety of ideas, notions, views and beliefs. Everyone can agree on that. Are all necessarily accurate and true? No.

To some purists God would be above, below even, existence, being.

If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

[Eodnhoj7]

…existence is infinite and eternal

Agree.

Nothing is similar to that in any way. Least of all our doodlings on a par with cave paintings.

Perhaps, and you make a fair point. However examples of some sort must be utilized to convey ideas.

Nature, Greek phusis, physics does universes. According to its minimal, totally deterministic laws. They cannot vary.

That is a statement extending from a limited perspective.

As illustrated physics systems can vary, at least virtually, while still operating within certain parameters. Take for example football video games. They all operate within certain standard parameters, rules, the same patterns and motions. Yet they still vary, if only a little. Not only the game mechanics, but the programming methods and structures behind the games.

If that can be accomplished on this level, why not on a superior level?

In the way you suggest physics as the ground for universes, deity could be the ground for those systems. In that case, deity would still be part of existence.

Let’s get to the core of the issue. What is physics? What is deity? Things acting. Things happening. Things. Existence. All else could be viewed merely as label games.

There are a variety of views and beliefs. Everyone can agree on that.

Invoking an intentional creator, a humble instantiater of the immutable, prevenient laws of physics, makes matters infinitely worse. Especially as there is no warrant, no justification for doing so.

No purpose is served by Them whatsoever.

So your primary reason for rejection is deity complicates things? Are you implying physics isn’t complicated? Cosmological models aren’t complicated? Humanity isn’t complicated?

Many would contend it isn’t a matter of invoking but rather a matter of realizing.

Many would also attest that such realization prompts reflection and recourse fostering understanding, improvement and growth.

As expressed, there are a variety of ideas, notions, views and beliefs. Everyone can agree on that. Are all necessarily accurate and true? No.

To some purists God would be above, below even, existence, being.

If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

If God is limited to existence than God ceases to be God for God is subject to existence thus not all powerful. For God to be God God would not have to be subject to God.

[Age]

…existence is infinite and eternal

Agree.

Nothing is similar to that in any way. Least of all our doodlings on a par with cave paintings.

Perhaps, and you make a fair point. However examples of some sort must be utilized to convey ideas.

Nature, Greek phusis, physics does universes. According to its minimal, totally deterministic laws. They cannot vary.

That is a statement extending from a limited perspective.

As illustrated physics systems can vary, at least virtually, while still operating within certain parameters. Take for example football video games. They all operate within certain standard parameters, rules, the same patterns and motions. Yet they still vary, if only a little. Not only the game mechanics, but the programming methods and structures behind the games.

If that can be accomplished on this level, why not on a superior level?

In the way you suggest physics as the ground for universes, deity could be the ground for those systems. In that case, deity would still be part of existence.

Let’s get to the core of the issue. What is physics? What is deity? Things acting. Things happening. Things. Existence. All else could be viewed merely as label games.

There are a variety of views and beliefs. Everyone can agree on that.

Invoking an intentional creator, a humble instantiater of the immutable, prevenient laws of physics, makes matters infinitely worse. Especially as there is no warrant, no justification for doing so.

No purpose is served by Them whatsoever.

So your primary reason for rejection is deity complicates things? Are you implying physics isn’t complicated? Cosmological models aren’t complicated? Humanity isn’t complicated?

Many would contend it isn’t a matter of invoking but rather a matter of realizing.

Many would also attest that such realization prompts reflection and recourse fostering understanding, improvement and growth.

As expressed, there are a variety of ideas, notions, views and beliefs. Everyone can agree on that. Are all necessarily accurate and true? No.

To some purists God would be above, below even, existence, being.

If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

If God is limited to existence than God ceases to be God for God is subject to existence thus not all powerful. For God to be God God would not have to be subject to God.

But, Existence, Itself, is eternal and infinite. Therefore, all powerful.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

…existence is infinite and eternal

Agree.

Nothing is similar to that in any way. Least of all our doodlings on a par with cave paintings.

Perhaps, and you make a fair point. However examples of some sort must be utilized to convey ideas.

Nature, Greek phusis, physics does universes. According to its minimal, totally deterministic laws. They cannot vary.

(a) That is a statement extending from a limited perspective.

As illustrated physics systems can vary, at least virtually, while still operating within certain parameters. Take for example football video games. They all operate within certain standard parameters, rules, the same patterns and motions. Yet they still vary, if only a little. Not only the game mechanics, but the programming methods and structures behind the games.

If that can be accomplished on this level, why not on a superior level?

In the way you suggest physics as the ground for universes, deity could be the ground for those systems. In that case, deity would still be part of existence.

Let’s get to the core of the issue. What is physics? What is deity? Things acting. Things happening. Things. Existence. All else could be viewed merely as label games.

There are a variety of views and beliefs. Everyone can agree on that.

Invoking an intentional creator, a humble instantiater of the immutable, prevenient laws of physics, makes matters infinitely worse. Especially as there is no warrant, no justification for doing so.

No purpose is served by Them whatsoever.

(b) So your primary reason for rejection is deity complicates things? Are you implying physics isn’t complicated? Cosmological models aren’t complicated? Humanity isn’t complicated?

Many would contend it isn’t a matter of invoking but rather a matter of realizing.

(c) Many would also attest that such realization prompts reflection and recourse fostering understanding, improvement and growth.

(d) As expressed, there are a variety of ideas, notions, views and beliefs. Everyone can agree on that. Are all necessarily accurate and true? No.

To some purists God would be above, below even, existence, being.

(e) If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

(a) Order does not require meaning. Nature is self ordering according to least complex rules. It doesn't fantasize except in us. If you have to believe otherwise, fine. That isn't consilient. You agree with me and then repeat the fatuous analogy. Nature, existence isn't programmed.

(b) My primary reason for rejection of an intentional ground of being, is less than zero evidence. I have realized that.

(c) And it prompts reflection and recourse [to] fostering understanding, improvement and growth.

(d) No. The incoherent, unwarranted, unjustified, untrue ones not.

(e) That depends on the nature of existence.

[Belinda]

What is God? God is your best values.

[Fairy]

“From one thing, know ten thousand things.”
~ Miyamoto Musashi

Idiom alert Understand as "From one thing know all things" Perhaps the most well known line of the Tao Te Ching is "The ten-thousand things are straw dogs" (all things in creation are disposable once purpose done)

The only way anything exists is if everything exists.
When one thing is known everything is known. Knowing is infinite.

You are this knowing. You are infinite. You are God.

[daniel j lavender]

Nature, Greek phusis, physics does universes. According to its minimal, totally deterministic laws. They cannot vary.

(a) That is a statement extending from a limited perspective.

(a) Order does not require meaning. Nature is self ordering according to least complex rules. It doesn't fantasize except in us. If you have to believe otherwise, fine. That isn't consilient.

You’re suggesting laws of physics cannot vary. That all systems must be the same. That all existence must follow rigid, identical rules.

The point is you are applying a local observation to the entirety of existence.

You’re essentially saying “an apple is an apple so all things must be apples”.

Or “I’m in a brick house so all houses must be brick”.

A specific instance does not necessarily apply to all.

You agree with me and then repeat the fatuous analogy.

Eternal, infinite existence does not preclude deity. It does not preclude creation. In fact it accommodates a variety of views as illustrated within the ontology.

Nature, existence isn't programmed.

Systems can be programmed. Take video games, once again, for example. Video game universes are programmed by human beings.

Video game universes are parts of existence. Those are programmed systems. This universe couldn’t be something similar?

(b) So your primary reason for rejection is deity complicates things? Are you implying physics isn’t complicated? Cosmological models aren’t complicated? Humanity isn’t complicated?

(b) My primary reason for rejection of an intentional ground of being, is less than zero evidence. I have realized that.

Less than zero evidence? What about religious texts? What about the Bible? Is that not evidence?

To some purists God would be above, below even, existence, being.

(e) If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

(e) That depends on the nature of existence.

Existence is defined here: viewtopic.php?t=40269

This topic is addressed in the Theological Versatility section:

Theological Versatility

While many philosophical systems offer rigid prescriptions for existence the framework presented herein supports a plethora of theological and metaphysical interpretations.

The framework accommodates theism and deism in which deity, a part of existence, creates the universe, another part of existence. It accommodates pantheism in which all is equated with deity. It accommodates naturalism in which systems and structures develop naturally. It accommodates agnosticism in which knowledge of deity is uncertain. The framework also accommodates atheism in which deity is rejected. All positions are accommodated without compromising the integrity of the ontology.

Not only does the philosophy accommodate various theological positions it also reveals and connects the commonalities among them.

Also accommodated is the view expressed here:

God is your best values.

Although the ontology is inclusive of such a wide range of beliefs and views it is not afflicted by ambiguity. It is reflective of the reality of the environment in which we live. Many beliefs and metaphysical positions exist in the world. In this way I contend the ontology leans more toward reality than ambiguity. Ultimately each individual chooses what they believe.

[Eodnhoj7]

What is God? God is your best values.

Values are but a distinction of experiential reality, they are subsets of the process of distinction making, they are patterns to transform behaviors. Values are not the be all end all for they are but patterns.

[Eodnhoj7]

If God is subject only to existence than God would cease to be God for there is a law that drives, existence in this case, God thus making the law a God beyond God.

If God is subject to the power of God than God would cease to be God as God would be subject to himself and be driven by an image for identity is image by degree of it having limits and form.

For God to be God, God would effectively be existence and beyond existence, nothingness, so to be God. Existence is finite by degree of there only being one existence, God would have to transcend finiteness if all powerful and all knowing.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

(a) That is a statement extending from a limited perspective.

(a) Order does not require meaning. Nature is self ordering according to least complex rules. It doesn't fantasize except in us. If you have to believe otherwise, fine. That isn't consilient.

You’re suggesting laws of physics cannot vary. That all systems must be the same. That all existence must follow rigid, identical rules.

The point is you are applying a local observation to the entirety of existence.

You’re essentially saying “an apple is an apple so all things must be apples”.

Or “I’m in a brick house so all houses must be brick”.

A specific instance does not necessarily apply to all.

You agree with me and then repeat the fatuous analogy.

Eternal, infinite existence does not preclude deity. It does not preclude creation. In fact it accommodates a variety of views as illustrated within the ontology.

Nature, existence isn't programmed.

Systems can be programmed. Take video games, once again, for example. Video game universes are programmed by human beings.

Video game universes are parts of existence. Those are programmed systems. This universe couldn’t be something similar?

(b) So your primary reason for rejection is deity complicates things? Are you implying physics isn’t complicated? Cosmological models aren’t complicated? Humanity isn’t complicated?

(b) My primary reason for rejection of an intentional ground of being, is less than zero evidence. I have realized that.

Less than zero evidence? What about religious texts? What about the Bible? Is that not evidence?

(e) If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

(e) That depends on the nature of existence.

Existence is defined here: viewtopic.php?t=40269

This topic is addressed in the Theological Versatility section:

Theological Versatility

While many philosophical systems offer rigid prescriptions for existence the framework presented herein supports a plethora of theological and metaphysical interpretations.

The framework accommodates theism and deism in which deity, a part of existence, creates the universe, another part of existence. It accommodates pantheism in which all is equated with deity. It accommodates naturalism in which systems and structures develop naturally. It accommodates agnosticism in which knowledge of deity is uncertain. The framework also accommodates atheism in which deity is rejected. All positions are accommodated without compromising the integrity of the ontology.

Not only does the philosophy accommodate various theological positions it also reveals and connects the commonalities among them.

Also accommodated is the view expressed here:

God is your best values.

Although the ontology is inclusive of such a wide range of beliefs and views it is not afflicted by ambiguity. It is reflective of the reality of the environment in which we live. Many beliefs and metaphysical positions exist in the world. In this way I contend the ontology leans more toward reality than ambiguity. Ultimately each individual chooses what they believe.

Existence is indeed, of course, eternal. It has the time dimension. God does not. He is not contained by mere dimensions.

[daniel j lavender]

Existence is indeed, of course, eternal. It has the time dimension. God does not. He is not contained by mere dimensions.

What concept of deity are you referring to? God is not eternal?

Yes, eternity and eternal do concern time. The terms concern time in the sense of unlimited duration.

And existence obviously concerns time, as time is an aspect of existence.

However existence also transcends time, at least as we know it, and that is largely what the terms “eternal” and “eternity” seek to convey.

Motion, change, events allow measurement; they provide boundaries or points for demarcation. Day changes to night and that change can be measured, the duration can be quantified. An infant grows into an adolescent, the same premise applies.

Things change into other things however existence persists. There is no point in which existence begins to begin measurement. There is no point in which existence ends to end measurement. Existence is constant, existence is all. It doesn’t fluctuate or change to be measured. Existence simply is.

Unfortunately it’s difficult to convey the idea of transcending time without invoking the concept of time. That’s largely the issue here.

So yes, existence concerns time but existence also transcends time. This makes your assertion, that existence has time dimensions while also exceeding them, sensible.